On behalf of the organizing committee, I would like to express my appreciation for all the efforts of the many people and organizations who have contributed to this event.

 

This conference is a part of the Commemoration of Professor Dr. Khun Banchob Bandhumedha on her 100th Birth Anniversary.

 

Sincere appreciation is extended to all the scholars who have graciously accepted to share their wisdom and research expertise in this venue. Their contribution is a genuine reflection of the success of this beneficial conference.

 

 

Ritirong Jiwakanon

 

Director, Institute of Thai Studies
Chulalongkorn University

 

Education

 

Bachelor of Arts and Diploma of High School Teacher, Chulalongkorn University, 1940.

 

Master of Arts, Chulalongkorn University, 1944.

 

Ph.D. in Philology, Banaras Hindu University, India, 1952.

 

 

Career

 

Teacher at Satri Wat Rakhang School, 1941-1942.

 

Lecturer at Chandrakasem Teachers’ College, 1945-1965.

 

Special Lecturer at Department of Thai, Faculty of Humanities, Ramkhamhaeng University, 1971-1977.

 

 

Honorary Degrees and Awards

 

Honorary Doctorate in Thai, Chulalongkorn University, 1977.

 

Honorary Doctorate in Thai, Ramkhamhaeng University, 1979.

 

Golden Coronet Award, Chulalongkorn University, 1986.

 

National Outstanding Researcher Award (Philosophy), National Research Council of Thailand, 1987.

 

 

Royal Insignias

 

Fourth Class of the Most Illustrious Order of Chula Chom Klao, 1987.

 

Companion (Third Class, Lower Grade) of the Most Illustrious Order of Chula Chom Klao, 1990.

 

 

Significant Publications 

 

Laksana Phasa Thai. [Characteristics of Thai]. (ลักษณะภาษาไทย). Ramkhamhaeng University, 1971. 

 

Phasa Tang Prathet Nai Phasa Thai. [Foreign Languages in Thai]. (ภาษาต่างประเทศในภาษาไทย). Ramkhamhaeng University, 1973.

 

Bali Sansakrit Nai Phasa Thai. [Pali-Sanskrit in Thai]. (บาลีสันสกฤตในภาษาไทย).  Ramkhamhaeng University, 1974.

 

Photchananukrom Khamen-Thai Chabap Phraya Anuman Rajadhon Lem 1-5. [Phraya Anuman Rajadhon’s Khmer-Thai Dictionary, Vols. 1-5]. (พจนานุกรมเขมร-ไทย ฉบับทุนพระยาอนุมานราชธน เล่ม ๑-๕), 1974-1985.

 

Photchananukrom Mon-Thai Chabap Phraya Anuman Rajadhon Lem 1. [Phraya Anuman Rajadhon’s Mon-Thai Dictionary, Vol. 1]. (พจนานุกรมมอญ-ไทย ฉบับทุนพระยาอนุมานราชธน เล่ม ๑), 1988.

 

Photchananukrom Phake-Thai-Angkrit. [Phake-Thai-English Dictionary]. (พจนานุกรมพ่าเก่-ไทย-อังกฤษ), 1990.

 

Ka Le Man Tai. [Visiting Tai Communities]. (กาเลหม่านไต), 1961.

 

An Nuang Duay Chue. [About Names]. (อันเนื่องด้วยชื่อ), 1963. 

 

Ka Le Man Tai Nai Rat Chan. [Visiting Tai Communities in Shan State]. (กาเลหม่านไตในรัฐชาน), 1983.

 

Pai Sop Kham Thai. [Investigating Thai Words]. (ไปสอบคำไทย), 1979.

08.00-08.30

 

Registration

 

09.00-09.15

 

Arrival of HRH Princess Maha Chakri Sirindhorn

 

 

OPENING CEREMONY

 

     Room: Astor Ballroom
     MC: Surapeepan Chatraporn

 

09.15-09.30

 

Presentation of a report to HRH Princess Maha Chakri Sirindhorn
     Bundhit Eua-arporn
     – President of Chulalongkorn University

 

Opening address by HRH Princess Maha Chakri Sirindhorn

 

 

KEYNOTE ADDRESSES

 

     Room: Astor Ballroom
     Moderator: Surapeepan Chatraporn

 

09.30-10.00

 

Occupation Terms in Thai 
     Pranee Kullavanijaya
     – Chulalongkorn University

 

10.00-10.30

 

Professor Dr. Khun Banchob Bandhumedha : An Eminent Thai Language Scholar
     Navavan Bandhumedha
     – The Royal Society of Thailand

 

10.30-10.45

 

Intermission

 

10.45-11.15

 

The Tai Languages of North East India : Dr. Banchob’s Role as Pioneering Scholar
     Stephen Morey
     – La Trobe University 

 

11.15-13.45

 

Luncheon

 

 

PARALLEL SESSIONS

 

13.45-16.15

 

Room	Topic
Astor Ballroom 2	Thai Language and Culture
Astor Ballroom 3	Thai-Tai Folklore
Rajadamri 2	Tai Languages

 

 

Session I : Thai Language and Culture

 

     Room: Astor Ballroom 2
     Moderator: Prapaipun Phingchim

 

13.45-14.15    

 

The Journey of the “Conjunction” in Thai Language
     Debi Jaratjarungkiat 
     – Chulalongkorn University

 

14.15-14.45    

 

The Thai Notion of Self-construal and Some Linguistic Evidence
     Natthaporn Panpothong
     Siriporn Phakdeephasook
     – Chulalongkorn University

 

14.45-15.15    

 

Break

 

15.15-15.45    

 

The Grammaticalisational Relationship Between Comitatives and Instrumentals in Thai: A Diachronic Typological Perspective

     Vipas Pothipath
     – Chulalongkorn University

 

15.45-16.15    

 

Distinctions in the Linguistic Encoding of Caused Separation in Thai
     Nitipong Pichetpan 
     – University of Sydney 
     – Thammasat University 

 

 

Session II : Thai-Tai Folklore

 

     Room: Astor Ballroom 3
     Moderator: Arthid Sheravanichkul

 

13.45-14.15    

 

The Telling of Tai Folktales by Professor Dr.  Khun Banchob Bandhumedha in Satri San 
     Poramin Jaruworn 
     – Chulalongkorn University

 

14.15-14.45    

 

The Tai Women: Representations in Myths and Rituals of Tai People in Central Mekong Basin Communities
     Pathom Hongsuwan
     – Mahasarakham University

 

14.45-15.15    

 

Break

 

15.15-15.45    

 

The Route to Heaven: Cosmology and World Narratives of Tai Dam from Funeral Manuscripts
     Pichet Saiphan
     – Thammasat University

 

15.45-16.15

 

"Roots of the Tai" in "Thailand's Songkran Tradition": Tai Cultural Inheritance and Creativity in Thai Society
     Aphilak Kasempholkoon 
     – Mahidol University 

 

 

Session III : Tai Languages

 

     Room: Rajadamri 2
     Moderator: Nattanun Chanchaochai

 

13.45-14.15    

 

Constituent Order in Tai Khamti: New Data from Myanmar
     Rikker Dockum
     – Swarthmore College

 

14.15-14.45    

 

Lanna Tai of the 16th Century as Attested from Chinese Source
     Shinnakrit Tangsiriwattanakul
     – Chulalongkorn University 

 

14.45-15.15    

 

Break

 

15.15-15.45    

 

Proto-Shan, Old Shan and the Making of Ahom Writing System
     Pittayawat Pittayaporn
     – Chulalongkorn University

 

15.45-16.15    

 

Analysing Phonological Variation in Tai Khuen
     Wyn Owen 
     – Payap University

 

Pranee Kullavanijaya

 

Chulalongkorn University

 

 

This study has three objectives. The first is to find when the word aa1chiip3 [อาชีพ] “occupation” appeared in the Thai lexicon with its current full meaning. This is based on the belief that a word will not be in the lexicon if the speaker does not need to express its meaning. Secondly, to study constructions of occupation terms and related words in order to see how these have developed. Thirdly, to see whether occupation items can reveal modes of living and their development in Thai society.

 

It has been found out that the word aa1chiip3 was used to mean “occupation” around 1928, although before that, in the reign of King Rama V, the idea of working for a living had been introduced through phrases such as “a possible way or trend for a living.” Using the identified occupation words from lists from the Department of Employment, Ministry of Labour, and from a research report, a search of earlier documents was made resulting in 110 items. These items and the identified occupation words were then investigated for word construction. It was learned that two types of construction could be identified. The first type consisted of relatively new terms borrowed from English. The other type consisted mostly of the items that are compounds with the head modified by two or three constituents. Compounds with chaaŋ3 [ช่าง] and mɔɔ5 [หมู่] as headwords are the older items; compounds with nak, phuu; khon are in the middle of the development line; and phə1nak4ŋaan1 and caaw3naa3thii3 represent the most recent development.

 

Compounds with chaaŋ3 as the headword were found largest in number, displaying both old occupations, such as chaaŋ3 may4 “carpenter”, chaaŋ3 puun1 “mason”, as well as more recent occupations, such as chaaŋ3 tham1 phom5 “hairdresser” and chaaŋ3 sɔm3 ɛɛ1 “air-conditioner technician”. Compared with other compounds, words using nak are increasingly used to denote occupations involving high technology and information technology. Compounds words using phə1nak4ŋaan1 and caaw3naa3thii3 display modes of living that focus on security in the workplace and, usually, working in large government units or companies. This is because, at present, one depends entirely on monthly payment so as to meet everyday necessities of life.

 

In conclusion, the study shows that the evolution of a set of words can illustrate both linguistic development and socio-economic development.

 

 

(Presented in the 2020 Chulalongkorn Asian Heritage Forum : Thai-Tai Language and Culture, 20 July 2020, The St.Regis Hotel, Bangkok, organized by Institute of Thai Studies, Chulalongkorn University, Department of Thai, Department of Linguistics, Southeast Asian Linguistics Research Unit, Faculty of Arts, Chulalongkorn University)

Navavan Bandhumedha

 

The Royal Society of Thailand

 

 

This paper provides a brief account of Professor Dr. Khun Banchob Bandhumedha’s life and works with an emphasis on her contributions to the study of the Thai language.

 

Professor Banchob had a keen interest in etymology and especially word derivations. The person who had significant influence on her academic pursuit was Phraya Anuman Rajadhon, who she got to know as a fourth-year student and was in constant contact throughout her life.

 

Some parts of her life were recounted in her columns in Satrisarn, a now-defunct women’s weekly magazine, covering her travels to various places to learn the languages of her interest and her contact with people living there, as well as their languages and cultures. Many of her articles dealt with the Thai language, some of them providing insight into Thai orthography. A case in point was an analysis of the vowel, sa-rà ʡai mái-múan [ใ].

 

In addition to her articles, Professor Banchob wrote three textbooks. The first one gave an insightful view on the nature of the Thai language. On the formation of Thai words, in particular, apart from compounds, reduplications, couplets and four-syllable expressions, she brought attention to a class of words with what she called upasak-thiam, or “pseudo-prefixes.” The second textbook described the characteristics of Pali and Sanskrit in comparison with those of Thai, including sound and meaning changes in borrowings from those two languages. An interesting observation in this textbook was that Thai speakers changed the /t/, /p/, and /v/ sounds in some Pali and Sanskrit loanwords into /d/, /b/, and /ph/, respectively. Such changes were attributable to the fact that many Thai borrowings from Pali and Sanskrit were through the Khmer language. The third textbook examined the characteristics of some other languages than Pali and Sanskrit that influenced the Thai language – in particular, Khmer, Chinese and English. In the case of Khmer, she pointed out that some Thai words that were often mistakenly thought to be borrowings from Khmer were, in fact, found to be the other way around.

 

One of Professor Banchob’s works that has indirectly contributed to the study of Thai is the Tai Phake-Thai-English Dictionary. One topic at issue on Thai word spelling is the digraph ʡɔɔ-ʡàaŋ-yɔɔ-yák [อย] representing one single consonant sound /y/ [ย]. It is hypothesized that in former times, there existed an initial consonant unit /ʡy/, but the glottal stop /ʡ/ before the palatal semivowel /y/ was subsequently dropped. The two words /yuu1/and /ʡuu1/, both meaning “to stay” in Tai Phake, confirm this hypothesis. Furthermore, the dictionary also contributes to the study of Thai words and derivations. Some Tai Phake words offer clues to our understanding of Thai polysyllabic word components. Certain words support these two hypotheses: first, some Thai words are derived from other words with similar sounds and meanings; secondly, some words with pseudo-prefixes are ultimately derived from compounds.

 

 

(Presented in the 2020 Chulalongkorn Asian Heritage Forum : Thai-Tai Language and Culture, 20 July 2020, The St.Regis Hotel, Bangkok, organized by Institute of Thai Studies, Chulalongkorn University, Department of Thai, Department of Linguistics, Southeast Asian Linguistics Research Unit, Faculty of Arts, Chulalongkorn University)

Stephen Morey

 

La Trobe University

 

 

Dr. Banchob Bandhumedha’s birth centenary is an opportunity to place her pioneering work in a context of linguistic research dating back more than two centuries. Up to six different Tai speaking groups have settled in northeast India since the 1200s: Ahom, Aiton, Khamti, Khamyang, Phake and Turung (whose language today is a variety of Singpho). Research on these languages, undertaken by speakers themselves, dates back to at least the 1790s with the composition of the Bar Amra, a lexicon of words in the Tai Ahom script with glosses in Assamese (written in Ahom). This was the first of a long tradition of making dictionaries to help interpret Tai Ahom manuscripts, a tradition that continues until the present day.

 

Very soon after, from the early 1800s, British officials, who were often also scholars, started to collect information on the various Tai languages. Among these, the article by William Robinson (1849), employing a word list provided by Rev. Nathan Brown, was the first to try and notate the tones of a spoken Tai language in northeast India, work that was not undertaken again until the first arrival of Dr. Banchob in northeast India in 1955.

 

In the paper, we will first present a short video that gives an overview of the research undertaken by Dr. Banchob and the response that the Tai communities in northeast India have had and continue to have to her work. In 2003, for example, the people of the Turung village of Na Kthong (Pathargaon) in Jorhat district held a prayer ceremony to honour Dr. Banchob. In the Phake village, a special song was composed in her honour (by the late Ngi Pe Pang) and sung for her and recorded by her. This song is still sung today on special occasions. In the late 1990s and into the 2000s, I was able to record songs and stories from some of the same singers and story tellers that Dr. Banchob had recorded 30 years earlier.

 

Dr. Banchob’s work was pioneering in so many ways; she was the first scholar since Robinson’s paper in 1849 to seek to understand the tonal systems of the Tai languages and the analysis she made of Tai Phake – as well as her transcription system – has been adopted by all researchers, including naming the tones in the order that she described them (one, two, three up to six).

In this paper, I also present translations of some of the songs that she recorded, work that she herself was not able to complete. Thanks to the kindness of her niece, Dr. Navavan, I was able to get the original recordings digitized in the early 2000s and to return these materials to the community. The songs recorded by Dr. Banchob are now held in high regard and have become a standard of traditional songs valued by the Tai communities in India.

 

 

(Presented in the 2020 Chulalongkorn Asian Heritage Forum : Thai-Tai Language and Culture, 20 July 2020, The St.Regis Hotel, Bangkok, organized by Institute of Thai Studies, Chulalongkorn University, Department of Thai, Department of Linguistics, Southeast Asian Linguistics Research Unit, Faculty of Arts, Chulalongkorn University)

Debi Jaratjarungkiat

 

Chulalongkorn University

 

 

In Thai Language textbooks, such as Phraya Uppakitsilpasarn’s Lak Pasa Thai and Professor Dr. Khun Banchob Bandhumedha’s Laksana Pasa Thai, the conjunction is a word that links words or massages to form a discourse. The definitions of these words show that the important function of the conjunction is to represent the continuous thinking of the discourse. However, in studies of conjunction after that, there are only two groups of words: content words and grammatical words. Conjunction has become a grammatical term that studies only the differentiation of the type of conjunction, such as the kind of link in words and sentences, or has been a historical study, for example in its grammaticalization. Therefore, this study of conjunctions has been mainly interested in its function at the word and sentence levels and has not been extended to show that conjunction is a device that assists both spoken and written communication at the level of “meaning of discourse”. The function to clarify meaning is a vital function of the “conjunction” from the beginning, in the opinion of Thai language teachers.

 

 

(Presented in the 2020 Chulalongkorn Asian Heritage Forum : Thai-Tai Language and Culture, 20 July 2020, The St.Regis Hotel, Bangkok, organized by Institute of Thai Studies, Chulalongkorn University, Department of Thai, Department of Linguistics, Southeast Asian Linguistics Research Unit, Faculty of Arts, Chulalongkorn University)

Natthaporn Panpothong

Siriporn Phakdeephasook

 

Department of Thai, Thaivithat Research Unit, Chulalongkorn University

 

 

According to Markus and Kitayama’s (1991) well-known theory, self-construal or cognitive representations of the self that people hold can be divided into two primary types – independent and interdependent self-construal. As noted in psychological research, the way we conceptualize and experience ourselves has an influence upon the way we think and interact with others. Thus, the notion of self-construal appears to be significant as an underlying logic to account for linguistic behaviors in different cultures. 

 

In Markus and Kitayama’s famous model, Thai culture is presented as an example of cultures in which people are likely to have some version of an interdependent self (Markus and Kitayame 1991:228). Nevertheless, not all scholars working on Thai culture agree on this proposal. Some argue that Thai people have a strong sense of independence and individualistic behaviors can be found in many aspects of daily life (Embree 1950, Komin 1991, Wichitwathakarn 2008).    

 

To date, scholars still hold different views on the prominent self-construal of Thai people. Most of the previous studies were conducted from the perspectives of social psychology and anthropology using data from interviews, questionnaires and psychological experiments. Little has been done from a linguistic viewpoint. The present study aims at examining linguistic data from the Thai language in response to the question of whether Thai culture emphasizes independent or interdependent perspectives of the self.  The data examined in this study include: 1. Thai cultural key terms, sayings and proverbs; 2. Thai pronouns and final particles; and 3. interactional discourse.

 

 

(Presented in the 2020 Chulalongkorn Asian Heritage Forum : Thai-Tai Language and Culture, 20 July 2020, The St.Regis Hotel, Bangkok, organized by Institute of Thai Studies, Chulalongkorn University, Department of Thai, Department of Linguistics, Southeast Asian Linguistics Research Unit, Faculty of Arts, Chulalongkorn University)

Vipas Pothipath

 

Department of Thai, Faculty of Arts, Chulalongkorn University

 

 

Languages are divided into three types with respect to the encoding of comitatives and instrumentals: IDENTITY – only one single relator for the two categories; DIFFERENTIATION – two different relators at least for the two categories; and MIXED – a mixture of features of the two aforementioned types (Stolz, Stroth & Urdze 2011). This paper argues in favour of the diachronic typological view that language types can be considered as stages in the process of language change (cf. Croft 2003). Evidence is provided by the development of the encoding of comitatives and instrumentals in the history of Thai. Diachronic data from Thai (13th-21st centuries or the Sukhothai period to the present) suggest that the three language types mentioned above correspond to the three stages of development of the relation hold between the two categories. These stages progress as follows: IDENTITY > MIXED > DIFFERENTIATION. In the 13th-17th centuries (Sukhothai to Middle Ayutthaya periods), Thai was presumably characterized by IDENTITY, that is to say, the language used only one single relator –the preposition dûay [ด้วย] “with” – for comitative, as well as instrumental. Later, in the late 17th-19th centuries (Late Ayutthaya to Early Rattanakosin periods), the preposition kàp [กับ] “and/with”, which was originally used as a noun phrase conjunction, had become grammaticalised to a comitative marker as well. Irrespective of this ongoing change, the preposition dûay had been preserved to encode comitative, as well as instrumental. Accordingly, Thai in the 17th-19th centuries employed the pattern of MIXED. The comitative kàp became more frequent during the course of the 17th-19th centuries. On account of the principle of economy in language evolution (i.e., two forms are unlikely to coexist with exactly the same function), the comitative dûay gradually gave way to the alternative comitative kàp. In a further stage, around the late 19th century (King Rama IV to the present), the comitative dûay has been losing its place, while the comitative kàp has remained and developed. Again, Thai underwent another typological change from MIXED to DIFFERENTIATION. For present-day Thai, the preposition dûay has been preserved for instrumental, as well as other grammatical functions, but not for comitative. However, sporadic traces of the comitative dûay remain in a few lexicalised adverbs (e.g., dûay kan [ด้วยกัน] “together”). As for the preposition kàp, the relator is now used exclusively to encode comitative function. Interestingly, recently, the preposition kàp also appears to have developed into an instrumental marker, severely restricted in its use though. Overall, this paper will contribute to the studies of typological change in the encoding of comitatives and instrumentals.

 

 

(Presented in the 2020 Chulalongkorn Asian Heritage Forum : Thai-Tai Language and Culture, 20 July 2020, The St.Regis Hotel, Bangkok, organized by Institute of Thai Studies, Chulalongkorn University, Department of Thai, Department of Linguistics, Southeast Asian Linguistics Research Unit, Faculty of Arts, Chulalongkorn University)

Nitipong Pichetpan

 

University of Sydney

Thammasat University

 

 

This paper discusses Thai free descriptions of caused separation (henceforth CS) in an attempt to address the lexical semantic question of how speakers of Thai linguistically encode events. How humans categorise, talk about or “name” events through language is one of the key questions in the study of linguistic encoding of human experiences of the world (cf. Vulchanova and van der Zee (Eds.), 2012). Much of the earlier cross-linguistic and monolingual exploratory research has been conducted to address the lexico-semantic aspect of the issue using experimental corpora (Gullberg and Burenhult, 2012; Malt et al., 2014; 2008, Vulchanova, Mertinez, and Vulchova, 2012, among others). Yet to date, Thai, a Mainland Southeast Asian language, has still been one of the relatively understudied languages in that respect, with the use of spoken data as commonly partial towards applications of evidence from written language (cf. Premsrirat, 1987; Thepchuaysuk, 2016; 2017). This study’s presentation and discussion, thus, contributes to the existing literature regarding Thai about the issue through experimentally elicited data, and, therefore, extends earlier work in lexical and semantic frameworks. The CS domain is chosen here because of its primary experientiality in human life. It, thus, pertains to the universality of lexicalisation, accordingly useful for further cross-linguistic comparisons, potentially to resolve the matter of linguistic semantic categorization at the typological level. A video elicitation task (i.e., a subset of the ‘cut’ and ‘break’ clips by Bohnemeyer et al., 2001) was employed to collect colloquial descriptions for CS events by seven adult native Thai-speaking informants. The verbs used to name such video clips were inputted as variables to cluster analysis, which helps match the perceptual stimuli to such lexical items (cf. Majid et al., 2007), resulting in dendrograms. The dendrograms aid in revealing distinctions between different events of CS and conclude such categorisation’s internal structure in Thai. The results show that, based on similarity and differences in labelling of the video clips, the linguistic encoding of CS in Thai is argued to hinge on a system of conceptual features, which determines the carve-up of CS in linguistic semantics. Specifically, Thai makes a clear instrument-versus-non-instrument distinction at the most coarse-grained level in the CS domain. The finer-grained classification suggests the number of meaningful top categories where CS scenes generally share the same set of conceptual features. These categories differ in the complexity of their hierarchical structure since some that are deeper in hierarchy as classifiable into more and more delicate subcategories. Given the hierarchically organised linguistic distinctions of CS in Thai, resting on sets of conceptual features, this points to the use of salient event-related features as parameters for semantic categorisation. As well, such distinctions help explain, in a way, that an event is ordinarily describable with more than one verb in a language such as Thai because it can be linguistically encoded quite flexibly at different levels of categorisation by the same or different speakers.

 

 

(Presented in the 2020 Chulalongkorn Asian Heritage Forum : Thai-Tai Language and Culture, 20 July 2020, The St.Regis Hotel, Bangkok, organized by Institute of Thai Studies, Chulalongkorn University, Department of Thai, Department of Linguistics, Southeast Asian Linguistics Research Unit, Faculty of Arts, Chulalongkorn University)

Poramin Jaruworn

 

Department of Thai, Faculty of Arts, Chulalongkorn University

 

 

Professor Dr. Khun Banchob Bandhumedha recounts more than one thousand folktales around the world in the magazine, Satri San, during 1954-1993. This article aims to study her telling of Tai folktales from several groups of the Tai peoples: Tai Yai, Tai Phake, Tai Aiton, Tai Khamti, Tai Nuea in Yunnan, Tai Ahom and Lao.

 

Professor Dr. Banchob Bandhumedha is a distinguished and respectable scholar for her contribution to the study of Thai language and culture, as well as Tai culture. This study of the folktales told in Satri San reveals that Professor Dr. Banchob Bandhumedha is also a linguistic folklorist. Her storytelling shows not only her erudition, but also her expertise as a fieldwork researcher. Furthermore, the stories show her skills as a storyteller who interestingly inserts knowledge of language and culture related to her life and work into the stories. Not only does she recount the Tai folktales that she has studied, Professor Dr. Banchob Bandhumedha also connects various aspects of those stories with Thai and international folktales. Her storytelling greatly contributes to the body of folkloristic knowledge for current and future research.

 

 

(Presented in the 2020 Chulalongkorn Asian Heritage Forum : Thai-Tai Language and Culture, 20 July 2020, The St.Regis Hotel, Bangkok, organized by Institute of Thai Studies, Chulalongkorn University, Department of Thai, Department of Linguistics, Southeast Asian Linguistics Research Unit, Faculty of Arts, Chulalongkorn University)

Pathom Hongsuwan

 

Mahasarakham University

 

 

This paper aims to study the myths and rituals of Tai women in relation to their lifestyles, culture and society. The researcher has collected myths and ritual about women in various Tai communities located in the Mekong river basin, including in and outside Thailand. The data collected is in the form of written documents and oral literature.

 

Through an analysis of the social and cultural relations of Tai women through myths and rituals, the researcher has come to an understanding of the legends as being holy narratives. These narratives have been part of the traditional knowledge and wisdom of the Tai representing the power relations in negotiation to add value to nature. Tai women think from a cultural perspective, as well as create a moral relationship between women and nature, both of which involve supernatural power. The women are a form of nature that represents life and are a sacred continuity of the spiritual, cosmic and physical spaces.

 

The research findings reveal that the contents of the myths and rituals can be categorized into four thematic groups: 1) women and social status; 2) women and religious beliefs; 3) women and cultural politics; and 4) women and ethnicity. All these themes address the submissive roles of women. Furthermore, another crucial finding of the study is that Tai women’s femininity in the myths and rituals is blurred, diverse and contradictory, flowing among tradition and society along the aspect of time or dynamic everyday life. Such a representation of Tai women is that of physical, gender and ethnic perspectives where conflicts and mix of ethnicities can be found.

 

 

(Presented in the 2020 Chulalongkorn Asian Heritage Forum : Thai-Tai Language and Culture, 20 July 2020, The St.Regis Hotel, Bangkok, organized by Institute of Thai Studies, Chulalongkorn University, Department of Thai, Department of Linguistics, Southeast Asian Linguistics Research Unit, Faculty of Arts, Chulalongkorn University)

Pichet Saiphan

 

Faculty of Sociology and Anthropology, Thammasat University

 

 

This topic is the result of a research project entitled “Dynamics in Cosmology and Worldview of Lao Song / Tai Dam’s Ritual of Death” supported by The Princess Maha Chakri Sirindhorn Anthropology Center. The comparative study of funeral manuscripts, Kwam Bok Thang or Kwam Song Phi Khuen Muang Fha, was carried out among Tai Dam in Sip Song Chou Tai, Twelve Tai principalities, located in northwestern Vietnam and Tai Dam or Lao Song in Thailand. This work revealed that the Tai Dam in both areas still practice the use of traditional funeral manuscripts, sharing the same structure and details of the texts in spite of the fact that the Tai Dam in Thailand migrated from Sip Song Chou Tai to Siam more than 200 years ago. At the present time, they even preserve the classic cosmology of Heaven and Earth, Muang Fha-Muang Lum and worldview, including the history of migration from their place of origin, muang lo, where the last location on earth then connects the way from the sky to the heavens. In the funeral rite, kwan, the spirit or the essence of life, will be sent from the current settlement to go back along the route of migration to Muang Lo ending up in Muang Fha in order to meet Thaen God and their ancestor spirits.  

 

Traditionally, a funeral manuscript is a Tai Dam document that would be created by a ritual conductor during a funeral rite. It is keeping up an orthodoxy of Tai Dam belief system in Thaen and the cosmology of Muang Fha-Muang Lum. The text encourages a strong belief in the principle or doctrine of a moral system and righteous position in the context of the cosmology under the control of Thaen God’s will. The right practices in rituals will support and sustain the social world in the appropriate order.

 

The themes of the narratives portray the route back to heaven along the way of binary worlds, Muang Lum on earth and Muang Fha in the heavens. Muang Lum represents human world surroundings, including settlements, houses, rice fields, rivers, forests, mountains, villages and townships, where the spirit will be sent on the way back along the history of migration to the place of origin, Muang Lo, the first establishment on earth in Tai Dam historiography. Details describing the world of Muang Lum sketch out geographical perception and significant places in memory of their migration history. This could be regarded as Tai Dam diaspora consciousness of their ancestor homeland. Muang Fha is considered the heavenly world, a sphere for life after death and is the space of Thaen God. Muang Fha geographically parallels the human world, but is structured into levels of each kind of spirit places, with the highest arena belonging to the superior God, Thaen Luang. The designated place that the spirit, kwan, is sent back to on the route to heaven will be finally completed to live eternally with their ancestor spirits land.

 

 

(Presented in the 2020 Chulalongkorn Asian Heritage Forum : Thai-Tai Language and Culture, 20 July 2020, The St.Regis Hotel, Bangkok, organized by Institute of Thai Studies, Chulalongkorn University, Department of Thai, Department of Linguistics, Southeast Asian Linguistics Research Unit, Faculty of Arts, Chulalongkorn University)

Aphilak Kasempholkoon

 

Mahidol University

 

 

Inspired by Professor Dr. Khun Banchob Bandhumedha’s field trip surveying the Tai languages and cultures to Assamese villages in India and other places mentioned in one of the Thai classical works, Kale Man Tai (Journey to the Tai's Villages), this study focuses on indigenous rituals and traditions regarded as the basis of Thai culture that have been inherited today in Thailand. Among these is Songkran (Tai-Thai New Year Festival), also known by various names such as as Poi Sang Jaen-Poi Sang Kaen for the Tai Yai in Shan state in Myanmar, Poi Son Nam-Poi Sat Nam for the Tai Dehong and Tai Lue in Xishuangbanna in China, etc. Songkran has been selected as the subject matter because it is popularly followed by almost all Buddhist Tai people, whether or not they live in Thailand. The main purpose of this article is to examine the origin of the tradition, together with the relationship between Tai-Thai cultures, based on the assumption that the Songkran tradition of Tai people maintains its primary forms, whereas the same tradition in Thailand has not only "developed", but also has been "bound with its old roots."

 

It has been found that Thailand's Songkran traceably keeps original Tai characteristics, but is presented by eminently dynamistic performing ways and artistic elements so that it can be counted as a Thai distinctive festival with these interesting points: 1) the co-originating traditional aetiological myths mentioning the Tai's Khun Sangkhan (God of Songkran Period) and the Thai's Nang Songkran (Songkran Female Deities); 2) the old flower-picking tradition at the end of Songkran performed by Tai-Thai teenagers; 3) the water-pouring tradition to apologize to the elderly and to be blessed by them in several ways of practice called Kong Son, Hang Hot or Tang Benja; 4) various ways of social reinforcement, including the installation of village pillars and the formation of sand pagodas; and 5) the Tai-Thai festival food called kalamae. Nowadays, eventually, there is a vivid dynamism in Tai-Thai Songkran that expresses how the tradition has gradually changed to be a cultural festival among all Tai-Thai ethnic groups and reflects the adaptation of folklore to participate in a creative economy.

 

 

(Presented in the 2020 Chulalongkorn Asian Heritage Forum : Thai-Tai Language and Culture, 20 July 2020, The St.Regis Hotel, Bangkok, organized by Institute of Thai Studies, Chulalongkorn University, Department of Thai, Department of Linguistics, Southeast Asian Linguistics Research Unit, Faculty of Arts, Chulalongkorn University)

Rikker Dockum

 

Swarthmore College

 

 

There is no question that Tai Khamti (hereafter Khamti) would historically have had basic constituent order of Subject-Verb-Object (SVO), like nearly all Tai languages still have. But modern speakers also frequently use Subject-Object-Verb (SOV) order, typically attributed to centuries of contact with neighboring SOV languages. The issue of what constitutes the basic constituent order in Khamti has been a topic of debate among linguists for many decades and now involves data from three different centuries.

 

Based on Needham's (1894) grammar, Greenberg (1963) cited Khamti as an exception to his Universal 4, calling it an SOV language that was prepositional instead of postpositional. Khanittanan (1986) used data from her own fieldwork to argue that SVO was all but gone from Khamti and that it had fully transitioned to SOV. Diller (1992) showed that the syntactic generalizations laid out by Needham do not always hold and used data from other Tai languages of northeast India to argue for pragmatically driven constituent order, rather than SOV as basic. Morey (2006) introduced extensive additional data from northeast India, also arguing that Khamti’s verb-final ordering is pragmatically driven.

 

This study revisits the Khamti ordering debate with newly documented data from the Upper Chindwin River Valley in northwest Myanmar and provides sociolinguistic context to the data. The data come from a corpus of natural language texts, as well as 1,700 elicited sentences gathered between 2014 and 2017. Both SOV and SVO constituent orders are present throughout the data, as seen here:

 

(1)

 

kaw4-kʰaa2	kʰai6 kai6	tʰuk6 saw4	saaw2
1SG-POLITE	egg chicken	like	HON
S	O	V

 

‘I like chicken eggs.’

 

 

(2)

 

hə4-kʰaa2	tʰuk6 saw4	paa4 kyit6	saaw2
1SG-POLITE	like	k.o. fish	HON
S	V	O

                                     

‘I like (a kind of) fish.’

 

 

(3)

 

kaw4-kʰaa2	tʰuk6 saw4	nɛ2	tʰo6pʰɤk6	saaw2
1SG-POLITE	like	TOP	k.o. bean	HON
S	V		O

                                   

‘I like (a kind of) beans.’

 

 

(4)

 

tʰo6	nɛ2	tʰuk6 saw4	u6	saaw2
bean	TOP	like	PRES	HON
O		V

                                                         

‘I like beans.’

 

The Khamti case presents an interesting opportunity to study language contact influence on basic constituent order. Khamti has speaker communities in two countries, India and Myanmar, and in each country most Khamti speakers are also native or highly fluent speakers of a different SOV majority language: Assamese in northeast India and Burmese in Myanmar. While both basic orders are present in this new data, the notion of Khamti having basic SVO ordering is a part of the linguistic identity of some community members. At the same time, speakers openly credit Burmese influence for what they see as an ongoing change. This raises the question of the time scale of this kind of change to basic constituent order. If a change is indeed ongoing, it has been ongoing for well over a century and across geographically disparate dialects. The Khamti test case also presents an opportunity for further focused study to examine how different SOV majority languages might influence the Khamti dialects differently.

 

 

(Presented in the 2020 Chulalongkorn Asian Heritage Forum : Thai-Tai Language and Culture, 20 July 2020, The St.Regis Hotel, Bangkok, organized by Institute of Thai Studies, Chulalongkorn University, Department of Thai, Department of Linguistics, Southeast Asian Linguistics Research Unit, Faculty of Arts, Chulalongkorn University)

 

Shinnakrit Tangsiriwattanakul

 

Chulalongkorn University

 

 

The phonological evolution from Proto-Southwestern Tai (Pittayaporn, 2009) to modern Lanna Tai (Rungreuangsri, 1991), a Southwestern Tai dialect spoken by a majority in the northern part of Thailand, can be demonstrated by comparing two stages. The comparison reveals three transformative developments: 1) tone split based on voicing contrast; 2) a series of consonant mergers; and 3) establishment of a symmetric vowel inventory through acquisition of additional vowel length contrast. However, a study of their intermediate stage has never before been attempted. This paper presents a phonological sketch of Lanna Tai during the 16th century by applying graphemic analysis on Lanna Section (Chinese: 八百館 Bābǎiguǎn) of the Sino-Foreign manual of translation (Chinese: 華夷譯語 Huáyíyìyǔ), a Chinese document produced in the early 16th century for communication on diplomatic missions between the Ming court and the Lanna kingdom (Yongbunkeat, 1968; Shintani 1974). This manual of translation transcribes the pronunciation of Lanna Tai vocabulary using Chinese characters with approximate pronunciation, in addition to the Chinese semantic equivalence.

 

By comparing the correspondence between the Chinese characters and the transcribed Lanna Tai lexicon items, this study shows that 16th century Lanna Tai is phonologically very close to Modern Lanna Tai, but differ phonetically. With respect to consonants, 16th century Lanna Tai differed from modern Lanna Tai in making distinction between pairs of 1) /r/ & /h/, 2) /x/ & /kh/, and 3) /ch/ & /s/, as exemplified by the transcription of 1) [huŋC4] “rainbow” < Proto-Southwestern Tai *ruŋC by 隴 lǒng, 2) [kʰawC123] “enter” < Proto-Southwestern Tai *χawC by 毫 háo, as opposed to [kʰawC123] “rice” < Proto-Southwestern Tai *kʰawC by 栲 kǎo, and 3) [mɯaŋA4.sɛːA1] “Yunnan” by 猛車 měng chē. With respect to vowels, 16th century Lanna Tai had not acquired long /eː/, and short /ɛʔ/ & /ɔʔ/. Thus, the 16th century sound system helps improve our understanding of the more precise ordering of sound changes, as well as their approximate dating in relation to the manuscript.

 

 

(Presented in the 2020 Chulalongkorn Asian Heritage Forum : Thai-Tai Language and Culture, 20 July 2020, The St.Regis Hotel, Bangkok, organized by Institute of Thai Studies, Chulalongkorn University, Department of Thai, Department of Linguistics, Southeast Asian Linguistics Research Unit, Faculty of Arts, Chulalongkorn University)

Pittayawat Pittayaporn

 

Department of Linguistics, and the Southeast Asian Linguistics Research Unit

Faculty of Arts, Chulalongkorn University

 

 

Although tradition suggests that the Ahom writing system dates back to before the 13th century (Phukan 2006, Terwiel 1992: 11-14), the origin of Ahom writing is still a mystery since the oldest surviving Ahom text, the Snake Pillar inscription, dates back only to the 15th century (Hosken and Morey 2012). This paper investigates how the Ahom writing system came into existence by examining how Proto-Shan (10th-11th centuries) and Old Shan phonemes (13th century) are represented in the Ahom orthography. In general agreement with Ferlus (1988), Pain (2017) and Daniels (2012), it can be argued that the Ahom writing system was modified from the Shan writing system that had been adapted from the Old Burmese writing system in the 13th or 14th century. Crucially, the Ahom script (Wichasin 1986; Gogoi et al., to appear) represents a language that is almost identical to Old Shan, reconstructed on the basis of comparative data from modern Shan varieties, as well as the 15th century Baiyi Yiyu [白衣譯語]. For example, Ahom had lost the contrast between Proto-Southwestern Tai (PSWT) voiced and voiceless sonorants, e.g., Ahom n- for both PSWT *ʰnaːA “thick” and *naːA “rice field”. Moreover, the Ahom writing system displays some orthographical peculiarities reminiscent of the post-12th century Burmese writing system. Firstly, the use of medial –wa– to represent Old Shan *ɔ points to an orthographical alternation in later Old Burmese, e.g., kwang “heap” for *kɔŋA1 “heap”. Some Old Burmese –o– in closed syllables started to be consistently spelled –wa– only at the end of the 12th century (Hills 2013; Nishi 1998). Secondly, the use of final -ny to represent Old Shan *-j also reflects a sub-phonemic alternation between /aɲ /and /aj/ in the Burmese of the 13th century (Pain 2017; Nishi 1998, Sawada 2013). As a conclusion, a historical scenario can be proposed in which the Ahom adopted the Old Shan writing system after they first arrived in Assam in the early 13th century.

 

 

(Presented in the 2020 Chulalongkorn Asian Heritage Forum : Thai-Tai Language and Culture, 20 July 2020, The St.Regis Hotel, Bangkok, organized by Institute of Thai Studies, Chulalongkorn University, Department of Thai, Department of Linguistics, Southeast Asian Linguistics Research Unit, Faculty of Arts, Chulalongkorn University)

Wyn Owen

 

Payap University

 

 

Tai Khuen is a Southwestern Tai (Tai-Kadai) language spoken mainly in the Kengtung area of eastern Shan State, Myanmar (Egerod, 1959; Petsuk, 1978). During a brief visit to Kengtung in 1956, Dr. Banchob Bandhumedha noted linguistic differences between the Khuen varieties spoken in Kengtung Town and the outlying village of Wan Jai, and raised the question of whether Wan Jai would be able to maintain its linguistic distinctiveness (Bandhumedha, 1983, p. 72). This paper provides a partial answer to her question, drawing together more recent data not just from Wan Jai and Kengtung, but eight other locations in the Kengtung plain to present an overview of phonological variation in Khuen.

 

Owen (2012) identified contact with Shan (Tai Long) as the most likely cause of the differences between the Kengtung tone system and more conservative varieties. The present study expands on the previous work by including consonants and vowels, as well as more varieties. Contact with Shan is again found to be the most likely cause of the observed variation.

 

 

(Presented in the 2020 Chulalongkorn Asian Heritage Forum : Thai-Tai Language and Culture, 20 July 2020, The St.Regis Hotel, Bangkok, organized by Institute of Thai Studies, Chulalongkorn University, Department of Thai, Department of Linguistics, Southeast Asian Linguistics Research Unit, Faculty of Arts, Chulalongkorn University)

Advisors

 

Prof Dr Bundhit Eua-arporn
     President, Chulalongkorn University

 

Prof Dr Chakkaphan Sutthirat
     Vice President for Research Affairs, 
     Chulalongkorn University

 

Prof Dr Parichart Sthapitanonda
     Vice President for Academic Affairs and Social Outreach, 
     Chulalongkorn University

 

Assoc Prof Dr Suchitra Chongstitvatana
     Member, The Executive board of Institute of Thai Studies, 
     Chulalongkorn University

 

Asst Prof Dr Prapod Assavavirulhakarn
     Member, The Executive board of Institute of Thai Studies, 
     Chulalongkorn University

 

 

Chair

 

Assoc Prof Ritirong Jiwakanon
     Director, Institute of Thai Studies, 
     Chulalongkorn University

 

 

Committee

 

Assoc Prof Dr Suradech Chotiudompant 
     Dean, Faculty of Arts, 
     Chulalongkorn University

 

Assoc Prof Dr Poramin Jaruworn
     Head of Department of Thai
     Faculty of Arts, Chulalongkorn University

 

Asst Prof Dr Theeraporn Ratitamkul
     Head of Department of Linguistics
     Faculty of Arts, Chulalongkorn University

 

Dr Pavadee Saisuwan
     Head of Southeast Asian Linguistics Research Unit
     Faculty of Arts, Chulalongkorn University

 

Asst Prof Dr Arthit Thongtak
     Deputy Director of Administrative Affairs
     Institute of Thai Studies, Chulalongkorn University

 

Dr Suebpong Changboonchoo
     Deputy Director of International Affairs
     Institute of Thai Studies, Chulalongkorn University

 

Asst Prof Dr Pram Sounsamut (Secretary)
     Deputy Director of Research Affairs
     Institute of Thai Studies, Chulalongkorn University

The Institute of Thai Studies, Chulalongkorn University in collaboration with the Department of Thai, the Department of Linguistics, and the Southeast Asian Linguistics Research Unit, Faculty of Arts, Chulalongkorn University organized the international conference, 2020 Chulalongkorn Asian Heritage Forum: Thai-Tai Language and Culture, convened in Commemoration of Professor Dr. Khun Banchob Bandhumedha on her 100th Birth Anniversary. The conference will be held on July 20, 2020 at the St. Regis Hotel, Bangkok, Thailand.

 

Sincere appreciation is extended to all the scholars who have graciously accepted to share their wisdom in this venue. Their contribution is a genuine reflection of the success of this auspicious conference.

 

 

The records of conference presentations are available on the link : Click